LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

RECEIVED    BY   EXCHANGE 


Class 


GEORGE  and  DEMOCRACY 


ADDRESS 


DELIVERED    BY 


JAN1KS     V.     COIvKNIAN,     KSQ. 


BEFORE    THE 


SOCIETY   OF   ALUMNI, 

GEORGETOWN    COLLEGE, 

JUNE  27,  1887. 


GEORGE  and  DEMOCRACY 


ADDRESS 


DELIVERED    BY 


V.     COLENIAN 


BEFORE   THE 


SOCIETY   OF   ALUMNI, 

GEORGETOWN    COLLEGE, 

TUNE  27,  1887. 


GEORGE  and  DEMOCRACY. 


Mr.  President,  Gentlemen  of  the  Society  of  Alumni 
of  Georgetown  College  : 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  : 

In  thanking  my  brother  Alumni  for  the  great 
honor  they  have  conferred  on  me  in  selecting  me  to 
deliver  the  address  on  this  occasion,  I  find  my- 
self sadly  wanting  in  power  of  expression.  For  me, 
then,  let  brevity  be  the  soul  of  gratitude.  I  know 
of  no  better  or  completer  expression  of  my  feelings 
than  a  plain  "  T  thank  you ." 

The  time  is  rife  with  social  problems,  and  the 
world  is  jostled  by  social  reformers.  The  dismal 
science  of  political  economy  has  been  arrayed  in 
fashionable  garments,  and  the  drawing-room  vies 
with  the  workshop  in  the  discussion  of  her  myster- 
ious ways.  The  old  order  no  longer  satisfies,  and 
perhaps  with  reason.  Doctrines  and  theories  that 
would  have  filled  the  conditions  of  a  hundred 
years  ago  are  essentially  inapplicable  to  the  ad- 
vanced enlightenment  of  to-day,  and  modern  thought 
is  busy  with  a  thousand  schemes  of  social  reform. 
But,  while  honesty  and  philanthropy  conduct  the 
efforts  of  some,  too  many  of  these  would-be  teachers 
are  prompted  by  motives  that  are  anything  but  noble 
or  disinterested.  They  show  us  so  many  paths, 
that  we  hesitate,  and  know  not  which  to  take.  But 
the  broadest,  most  inviting  and  most  dangerous 


228314 


road  of  all  is  populous  with  thoughtless  travelers, 
and  it  becomes  your  duty  and  mine  to  write  the 
sign-board  "  Danger"  at  its  head,  and  to  lead  if 
possible  to  safer  ways. 

Of  all  his  blatant  brethren,  I  consider  Henry 
George  the  most  dangerous  to  society — not  so 
much  on  account  of  the  peculiarity  of  his 
doctrines,  but  more  especially  for  the  reason 
that  he  invests  them  with  a  charm,  an  eloquence 
and  an  appearance  of  logic  that  are  too  apt  to  de- 
ceive. With  specious  arguments  and  impassioned 
rhetoric,  he  sits,  like  a  modern  Moses,  on  the  moun- 
tain top  of  popular  clamor,  boldly  dictating  from 
his  home-made  tablets  the  decalogue  of  his  new- 
found faith  and  uttering  anathema  upon  all  who 
refuse  to  cross  his  treacherous  river  or  seek  the 
pleasures  of  his  phantom  land  of  promise— and  un- 
fortunately, his  following  is  large  and  eager,  and 
made  up  of  the  very  people  we  all  want  to  assist. 
But  let  me  suggest  here  that  nor  he  nor  his  theories, 
nor  his  following  are  accidental.  They  are  as  much 
a  natural  product  of  the  society  of  to-day  as  the  in- 
justices he  inveighs  against  and  we  can  no  more 
brush  him  aside  with  a  sneer  than  he  can  remodel 
the  world  with  a  sermon.  To  give  him  the  credit  of 
honesty,  he  and  all  of  us  are  seeking  justice,  and  all 
our  errors  are  in  a  measure  sanctified  by  the  great- 
ness of  the  object  sought.  It  will  not  do  to  plead  the 
law  against  him.  Existing  social  laws,  no  matter  of 
how  long  duration,  must  have  no  weight  in  the  de- 
liberation except  in  so  far  as  they  reflect  the  growth 
of  individual  and  social  conditions.  For  the  law 
itself  is  a  result  and  not  a  reason  of  society.  Man 
finds  justice  first,  and  then  fashions  the  law  to  make 


justice  effective.  The  weapon  is  not  the  wielder,  and 
laws  are  never  a  reason  unto  themselves.  Because  a 
thing  is  legal  therefore,  is  no  argument  that  it  is 
right.  For  example,  our  ideas  of  social  orthodoxy 
to-day  would  have  been  extremely  heterodox  two 
hundred  years  ago.  Feudal  tenures  and  the  duties 
of  serfs  would  ill  apply  to  the  consideration  of 
American  politics  of  now,  and  who  knows  but  that 
when  the  angel  of  Progress  shall  have  safely  guided 
us  through  another  century  of  prosperity,  she  will 
find  it  necessary  to  re-write  our  declaration  of  in- 
dependence making  freedom  more  free,  and  depend- 
ence more  detestable.  Let  us  therefore  give  error 
the  credit  of  honesty,  peel  it  of  its  rind  and  find,  if 
possible,  whether  it  possesses  one  seed  of  jus  dee, 
and  if  so,  graft  the  seed  on  the  trunk  of  the  true 
tree  and  haply  the  hybrid  will  be  that  other  apple3 
the  taste  of  which  will  bring  back  something  of  the 
paradise  that  we  have  lost. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  have  our  attention  called  to 
the  terrible  miseries  that  follow  in  the  wake  of  social 
injustices.  We  see  them  and  deplore  them  as  much 
as  Henry  George  himself.  We  see  the  many,  striking 
with  the  steel  of  labor,  a  few  sparks  of  comfort  from 
the  adamant  fate, — while  the  bowels  of  the  mountains 
give  up  their  riches  unasked  into  the  delicate  palms 
of  the  idle  few.  We  see  the  strong  grow  stronger,  and 
the  weak  weaker;  the  rich  grow  richer  and  the  poor 
poorer;  virtue  and  worth  unrewarded  while  crime 
and  immodesty  fill  the  seats  of  government  arid  walk 
bejewelled  through  the  perfumed  halls  of  plenty.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  tell  us  that  Dives  is  eternal  and 
that  his  offended  nostrils  to-day,  as  well  as  yester- 
day, avoid  in  vain  the  stench  of  Lazarus  at  his  door. 


6 

It  is  not  necessary  to  tell  us  that  the  same  sun  of 
progress  that  has  shone  upon  the  purple  of  the  mas- 
ter, has  also  dried  the  leper's  sores,  and  given 
strength  to  his  shrivelled  muscles, — until  now,  in- 
stead of  wallowing  for  an  accidental  crumb,  he 
stands  erect,  threatening  the  quiet  of  the  feast  with- 
in and  swollen  with  the  drunkenness  of  a  terrible 
revenge.  Let  Dives  beware  for  there  is  no  logic,  no 
leaven  of  reason  in  the  nascent  manhood  of  this 
awful  pauper.  His  not  to  bandy  words — his  not  to 
juggle  with  theories,  his  not  to  contract  for  so  many 
loaves  for  the  future  as  a  compensation  for  so  many 
crumbs  in  the  past.  The  steam  of  the  meats  is  in 
his  nostril,  the  ruddy  glare  of  the  wine  has  made 
him  drunk  already.  Crime  for  crime,  injustice  for 
injustice,  plenty  for  misery — this  is  all  he  knows  or 
cares  to  know.  The  picture  is  not  overdrawn.  The 
socialist,  the  anarchist,  the  nihilist  of  to-day  is  the 
rising  figure  of  Lazarus  of  yesterday.  It  is  not 
enough  to  throttle  the  impudent  beggar — he  must 
be  made  impossible.  The  sins  that  made  him  pos- 
sible must  be  washed  away  in  the  river  of  true  pro- 
gress. The  drunken  revel  within  must  give  place 
to  decent  feasting. 

A  wrong  exists— a  remedy  is  to  be  sought.  The 
discussion  then  of  the  remedy  for  the  confessed  in- 
justices of  society — whether  such  a  remedy  is  possi- 
ble, and,  if  so,  what  and  how  much  it  should  be,  is 
the  practical  part  of  social  or  political  reform.  And 
let  us  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  we  are  talking 
to  no  sect — that  no  particular  faith  is  to  be  called 
on  to  assist  in  the  argument.  Christians,  Jews, 
Gentiles,  unbelievers,  evolutionists,  agnostics,  the 
devotees  of  all  the  isms  that  weed  like  choke  the  gar- 


den  of  thought,  all  these  are  to  be  addressed — and 
no  argument  that  is  not  universal  to  these  will  be 
sufficient. 

Mr.  George's  theory,  as  I  have  said,  is  most  allur- 
ing, and  therefore,  most  dangerous.  The  traveller 
in  the  desert,  parched  with  thirst  and  faltering  with 
fatigue,  is  only  too  anxious  to  believe  that  the  in- 
tangible mirage  is  truly  a  fertile  oasis,  springing 
with  bubbling  waters,  and  shaded  with  refreshing 
trees,  but  it  is  a  mirage  in  spite  of  his  thirst,  and 
the  promise  of  rest  can  never  be  accomplished.  It 
is  beautiful  to  the  sight — it  invites  to  quick  and 
adequate  relief  and  full  and  bountiful  repose,  but  it 
will  fade  into  thin  air  when  he  approaches  it  and 
will  leave  him  panting  and  unsatisfied  on  the  burn- 
ing sands  of  a  fruitless  journey.  "A  lie  that  is  all 
a  lie  may  be  easily  met  and  vanquished,  but  a  lie 
that  is  half  the  truth  is  a  harder  matter  to  deal  with." 

Now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  state  as  concisely  as 
possible  the  two  fundamental  propositions  on  which 
is  built  Mr.  George's  system  of  social  philosophy  as 
explained  in  his  book  on  Progress  and  Poverty. 

The  first  is  that  "labor  produces  wealth,"  and 
the  second  that  "  the  land  belongs  to  the  people/' 

These  are  approached  and  sustained  by  a  number 
of  correlative  propositions,  but  stripped  of  all  verbi- 
age, his  system  is  reducible  to  these,  and  if  they  be 
accepted  as  proven,  his  conclusions  are  logical  and 
unavoidable.  I  propose  to  examine  them  in  turn  ; 
to  show  first  the  disastrous  results  that  would  ensue 
from  their  adoption,  and  then,  in  the  light  of  dis- 
passionate reason  to  prove,  if  possible,  their  inherent 
fallacy;  and,  finally,  as  far  as  is  in  my  power  to  sug- 
gest a  means  whereby  at  least  a  partial  and  perhaps 


8 

a  practical  remedy  for  the  injustices  of  society  may 
be  accomplished. 

Now,  as  to  the  first  proposition  :  If,  as  is  claimed, 
labor  produces  wealth— if,  in  the  full  sense  in  which 
it  is  announced,  there  is  no  increase  of  product  in 
the  world  but  that  which  owes  its  creation  to  labor 
— then  it  is  an  easy,  logical  conclusion  that  labor 
rightfully  owns  this  wealth,  this  increase,  this  pro- 
duct, and  that  any  other  ownership  is  robbery. 
According  to  this  theory,  under  the  laws  of  to-day, 
all  accumulations,  of  whatever  nature,  not  held  by 
the  laborer,  would  be  theft,  and  all  property  not 
enjoyed  by  him  would  be  legitimized  robbery.  If 
this  is  truth,  then  why  blame  labor  for  taking  what 
is  its  own  ?  If  society,  through  all  time,  has  by 
iniquitous  laws  robbed  labor  of  its  natural  rights, 
then  all  hail  to  the  blessed  philosopher  who  exposes 
the  iniquity  and  points  the  way  to  tardy  restitution. 
If  it  is  true  that  wealth  belongs  to  labor,  then  the 
ways  and  the  means  of  recovering  the  long- withheld 
patrimony  must  sink  into  insignificance  when  we 
contemplate  the  enormity  and  antiquity  of  the 
theft.  Then  is  there  a  reason  for  the  defiant  com 
munistic  cry:  u  Give  us  back  our  own— peaceably, 
if  you  will,  but  give  it  back,  or  we  will  take  it." 
Such  would  be  the  necessary  and  logical  result  of 
the  adoption  of  his  theory  that  labor  produces 
wealth.  How  impractical  such  a  result  would  be  I 
leave  to  your  imagination.  How  the  ill-gotten 
wealth  would  be  given  back,  and  to  whom  and  in 
what  proportions  ;  how  long  the  redistribution  would 
remain  undisturbed:  how  future  greed  and  future 
passions  and  future  strifes  could  be  prevented  from 
again  creating  new  robberies  and  new  accumulations 


9 

in  the  hands  of  the  few  to  the  detriment  of  the 
many,  are  questions  that  the  most  ardent  commun- 
ist scorns  to  discuss.  He  sees  a  chance  for  at  least 
one  dividend,  on  which  he  can  himself  fatten,  and 
perhaps  in  his  heart  he  says  that,  as  posterity  has 
done  nothing  for  him,  he  is  not  obliged  to  fashion 
any  system  of  social  philosophy  long  enough  to 
reach  posterity.  But,  whether  the  theory  is  practi- 
cal or  not,  is  it  reasonable  or  true?  Let  us  see. 

With  the  honesty  of  a  philosopher,  Mr.  George 
commences  his  work  with  a  philosopher's  promise. 
He  says:  "Before  proceeding  further  in  our  in- 
quiry, let  us  make  sure  of  the  meaning  of  our  terms, 
for  indistinctness  in  their  use  must  inevitably  pro- 
duce ambiguity  and  indeterminateness  in  reason- 
ing." Nothing  could  be  fairer  than  this,  and  no- 
thing could  be  fairer  than  his  other  promise  that,  if 
he  fails  to  prove  his  first  proposition,  he  is  willing 
to  let  his  whole  system  go  by  the  board.  Now, 
how  does  he  proceed  to  prove  it? 

He  says:  "I  am  aware  that  the  theorem  that 
wages  are  drawn  from  capital  is  one  of  the  most 
fundamental  and  apparently  best  settled  of  current 
political  economy,  and  that  it  has  been  accepted  as 
axiomatic  by  all  the  great  thinkers  who  have  .de- 
voted their  powers  to  the  elucidation  of  the  science. 
Nevertheless,  I  think  it  can  be  demonstrated  to  be 
a  fundamental  error.  This  demonstration  I  am 
about  to  attempt.  The  proposition  I  shall  endeavor 
to  prove  is  : 

"'That  wages,  instead  of  being  drawn  from 
capital,  are  in  reality  drawn  from  the  product  of 
the  labor  for  which  they  are  paid.'  ' 

In  order  to   prove  this  proposition,  he  sees  the 


10 

necessity  of  defining  capital  in  a  satisfactory  way, 
and,  in  order  to  define  capital,  he  becomes  obliged 
to  define  the  larger  idea,  wealth.  Let  us  follow 
him  in  these  definitions.  "Capital,"  he  says,  "is 
wealth  in  course  of  exchange."  In  another  place  : 
"All  capital  is  wealth,  but  all  wealth  is  not  capital. 
Capital  is  only  a  part  of  wealth — that  part,  namely, 
which  is  devoted  to  the  aid  of  production."  This 
definition  of  capital,  I  imagine,  may  be  accepted  as 
complete  and  clear,  but,  by  the  way,  how  can  he 
confess  that  capital  assists  in  production,  and  in  the 
same  breath  claim  that  labor  is  the  only  producer  ? 
But  what  is  wealth,  according  to  Mr.  George  ? 
What  is  the  greater  that  contains  the  lesser  1  For 
on  this  definition  hangs  the  integrity  of  his  argu- 
ment. Here  are  his  own  words  :  "  \Veal th,  as  alone 
the  term  can  be  used  in  political  economy,  consists 
of  natural  products  that  have  been  secured,  moved, 
combined,  or  in  other  ways  modified  by  human 
exertion,  so  as  to  fit  them  for  the  gratification  of 
human  desires."  In  other  words,  according  to 
him,  nothing  is  wealth  that  has  not  already  been 
produced.  If  this  is  true,  then  is  his  system  true, 
for  he  will  have  succeeded  in  proving  that  labor 
does  not  depend  upon  the  employment  of  capital, 
but  that  all  wealth  is  produced  by  labor,  and  that, 
therefore,  all  wealth  belongs  to  labor.  But  is  it 
true? 

His  reason  for  thus  limiting  the  idea  of  wealth  as 
a  term  of  political  economy  is  that  "many  things 
that  have  an  exchange  value,  and  are  commonly 
spoken  of  as  wealth,  insomuch  as  they  represent  as 
between  individuals  or  between  sets  of  individuals, 
the  power  of  obtaining  wealth — are  not  truly  wealth 


11 

inasmuch  as  their  increase  or  decrease  does  not 
affect  the  sum  of  wealth."  And  he  instances  as 
examples  of  such  false  wealth,  bonds,  mortgages, 
promissory  notes,  bank  bills  or  other  stipulations 
for  the  transfer  of  wealth,  slaves,  lands  or  other 
natural  opportunities,  and  then  with  these  examples 
and  these  alone,  he  airily  concludes  that  their 
presence  or  absence  could  not  increase  or  decrease 
actual  wealth,  and  that,  therefore,  mind  you,  only 
such  things  can  be  wealth,  the  production  of  which 
increases  and  the  destruction  of  which  decreases  the 
aggregate  of  wealth.  Parturiunt  monies  nascetur 
rediculus  mus  !  If  it  will  do  him  any  good,  I  will 
accept  his  conclusion.  But  let  us  go  back  and 
examine  this  wonderful  process  of  reasoning.  Stated 
concisely,  "the  power  of  obtaining  wealth  is  not 
truly  wealth  for  the  reason  that  its  increase  or  de- 
crease does  not  affect  the  sum  of  wealth—  But 
he  has  not  proved  that  it  does  not.  Has  he  defined 
what  that  power  of  obtaining  wealth  consists  of? 
Is  the  power  of  obtaining  wealth  confined  to  bonds, 
mortgages,  promissory  notes,  bank  bills,  slaves, 
lands  or  other  natural  opportunities  ?  Of  all  these 
examples  that  he  has  cited,  the  only  one  that  is 
really  a  power  of  obtaining  wealth  is  slaves,  and 
that  is  a  criminal  one.  Bonds,  mortgages,  notes 
and  bills  are  not  a  power  of  obtaining  wealth;  they 
are  merely  certificates  of  power  already  obtained. 
Lauds  are  not  a  power  of  obtaining  wealth ;  they 
are  themselves  the  wealth  obtained,  and  still  with 
all  the  air  of  victory,  with  examples  which  are  not 
examples  at  all,  he  concludes  with  a  proposition 
which  no  sane  man  will  deny.  But  the  power  of 
obtaining  wealth,  when  that  power  is  understood, 


12 

does  in  effect  by  its  development  increase  and  by  its 
destruction  decrease  the  aggregate  of  wealth, — and 
it  must  therefore,  out  of  his  own  mouth  be  wealth- 
even  for  purposes  of  political  economy. 

Let  us  see. 

Whatever  man  owns  or  possesses,  he  owns  and 
possesses  as  a  man,  not  merely  as  an  animal.  In 
order,  therefore,  to  arrive  at  a  proper  philosophical 
understanding  of  the  nature,  scope  and  extent  of 
possessions  that  are  applicable  to  man,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  have  a  very  clear  idea  of  what  the  term 
man  means .  He  is  a  very  complex  being,  and  must 
be  defined  comprehensively  or  not  at  all.  He  not 
only  walks,  works  and  moves  with  his  body,  but  he 
loves  and  suffers  with  his  heart, — and  soars  to  suc- 
cess or  grovels  to  failure  with  his  brain.  His  three- 
fold nature  is  interdependent — while  he  tarries  on 
the  earth  his  intellectual,  his  moral  and  his  physical 
are  necessary  to  make  him  entire.  Ownership 
therefore  to  him  may  mean  ownership  in  one  or  all 
of  these  capacities.  What  his  mind  owns,  it  owns; 
what  his  heart  owns,  it  owns;  what  his  body  owns, 
it  owns:  but  what  man  owns  is  man's.  The  term 
wealth,  therefore,  as  applicable  to  man' s  ownership, 
must  for  purposes  of  philosophy  be  susceptible  of 
a  sufficiently  wide  definition  to  cover  all  man's 
capacities.  There  are  mental  gifts  and  gifts  to  the 
heart  as  well  as  material  gifts  to  the  body.  There 
are  mental  products  and  products  of  the  heart  as 
well  as  the  tangible  products  of  mere  hand  labor. 
Shall  the  meaning  of  the  term  wealth  then  be  re- 
stricted to  merely  those  products  that  labor  has 
already  created  out  of  nature,  or  shall  it  imply 
further  in  the  words  that  Mr.  George  has  quoted 


13 

and  dismissed  without  comment  that  "the  first 
laborers  were  supplied  by  Providence  with  the  capi- 
tal necessary  to  set  them  to  work?-' 

Let  us  take  for  instance,  the  original  man,  the 
father  of  all. — No  rule  can  be  true  of  the  many  to-day 
that  was  not  possible  in  the  person  of  that  solitary 
sire  of  mankind.  Nothing  can  come  of  nothing.  If 
he  was  not  wealthy,  then  is  wealth  impossible. 
God  did  not  create  him  poor.  Nor  is  it  enough 
to  say  that  God  gave  him  labor,  and  that  labor 
— gave  him  riches.  God  did  not  give  him  labor 
even.  Labor  had  no  existence  until  the  first 
human  thought,  prompted  by  the  first  human 
desire,  resulted  in  the  first  human  act.  The  unused 
muscle  was  given  but  not  the  blow.  The  power 
was  given  but  not  the  act.  The  act  was  man's  cre- 
ation. Labor  is  man's  creation,  but  the  power  to 
labor,  the  intelligence  to  direct  that  labor,  as  well 
as  the  object  of  labor,  was  a  heritage  from  God 
himself.  Man's  original  wealth  was  mind,  heart 
and  muscle,  and  subsequently  produced  wealth 
depended  on  one  of  these  no  more  than  on  another. 
Man  stood  in  all  his  glorious  nakedness  and  gazed 
upon  the  spreading  valleys  and  the  fading  hills. 
No  enemy  to  say  to  him  nay,  the  world  was  his. 
The  winding  rivers  springing  from  his  feet  sought 
out  no  lands  but  his;  the  trees,  the  fruits,  the  flow- 
ers, the  life  of  all,  was  his  and  made  for  him.  The 
eyes  that  saw  were  his,  the  mind  that  knew  was  his, 
the  swelling  thews  were  his,  the  greed  to  take  and 
taste  was  his — he  was  rich;  and  when  he  moved  and 
labored  and  garnered  up  his  store,  his  wealth  was 
capital — so  much  as  had  been  used.  Wealth  then 
is  something  more  than  the  natural  product  that 


has  already  been  secured,  moved,  combined,  separ- 
arated  or  in  other  ways  modified  by  human  exertion. 
It  is  also,  and  primarily,  the  God-given  power  to 
secure,  move,  combine,  separate,  or  in  other  ways 
modify  Nature  by  human  exertion.  It  is  not  only 
a  new  wealth  that  has  been  produced  by  man  in 
one  or  more  of  his  capacities,  but  it  is  also  man's 
original  wealth  of  mind,  ambition,  will,  power, 
greed,  inventive  genius,  health,  muscle,  everything 
that  causes,  modifies  and  improves  labor  in  its  im- 
pact on  nature.  It  is  not  only  the  thing  possessed, 
but  it  is  also  the  means  possessed  of  acquiring  that 
thing.  You  do  not  yet  possess  the  gold  that  lies 
hidden  in  the  undiscovered  vein,  but  your  know- 
ledge will  find  the  vein  and  dig  the  gold  ;  that 
knowledge  is  wealth.  You  do  not  yet  possess  the 
venison  for  your  mountain  camp,  but  your  skill 
in  shooting  makes  you  sure  of  such  possession— 
that  skill  is  wealth.  Wealth  then  in  its  entire 
philosophical  sense  means  more  than  Mr.  Greorge 
defines  it.  He  has  the  right  of  course  to  distin- 
guish its  meaning — to  say  that  there  is  one  kind 
of  wealth  and  another  kind  of  wealth — but  he 
has  no  right  to  say  that  for  purposes  of  political 
economy,  wealth  can  mean  no  more  than  material 
wealth  already  produced  by  human  exertion,  any 
more  than  I  have  a  right  to  say  that  for  the  same 
purpose  wealth  can  mean  no  more  than  golden 
dollars.  Wealth  is  something  capable  of  possession 
by  man  in  his  three-fold  nature — of  head,  heart  and 
body.  The  possession  may  be  limited  to  one  or 
may  belong  to  all  of  these,  and  the  wealth  of  the 
mind  or  the  wealth  of  the  heart  is  just  as  capable  of 
producing  new  or  added  wealth  as  labor. 


15 

And  this  brings  me  to  a  further  consideration  of  the 
word  Capital.  If  wealth  means  more  than  he  has  de- 
fined it,  and  I  think  I  have  proved  that  it  does,  then 
by  his  own  terms  must  capital  mean  more  than  he  uses 
it  to  mean,  in  its  relation  to  labor.  Capital  being 
wealth  in  course  of  exchange,  or  in  other  words 
that  part  of  wealth  which  is  devoted  to  the  aid  of 
production,  is  with  these  limits  co-extensive  and 
parallel  with  the  widest  sense  of  wealth  itself.  If 
wealth  may  pertain  to  man's  mind  and  heart  and 
their  products  as  well  as  to  his  physical  nature  and 
its  products,  viz  ;  material  wealth  produced  ;  so 
also  must  capital  be  capable  of  a  similar  sub-divi- 
sion. If  material  wealth  in  course  of  exchange  is 
capital,  then  is  mental  wealth  when  exercised  in 
aid  of  production  equally  capital,  and  then,  also  the 
gifts  of  the  heart,  which  are  charity  and  brotherly 
love,  when  used  for  the  amelioration  of  mankind 
are  capital  indeed.  Unused  power  is  wealth,  used 
power  is  capital.  The  distinction  applies  to  power 
as  well  as  to  material  possessions.  And  this  wealth 
of  mind  and  heart,  which  is  unused  power,  and  this 
capital  of  mind  and  heart  which  is  used  power,  are 
just  as  instrumental  in  increasing  aggregate  material 
wealth  when  assisted  by  labor,  as  material  wealth 
itself,  when  similarly  assisted.  The  development 
and  encouragement  of  these  forms  of  wealth  and 
proper  use  of  these  forms  of  capital  increase  the 
aggregate  riches  of  a  people  as  really  as  the  devel- 
opment of  a  material  wealth  does,  and  their  decrease 
or  destruction  means  a  corresponding  decrease  in 
the  aggregate  of  such  people's  prosperity. 

Now,  let  us  return  to  Mr.  George's  proposition, 
which  he  promised  to  prove  with  so  much  ease; 


16 

viz.,  that  "wages,  instead  of  being  drawn  from  capi- 
tal, are  in  reality  drawn  from  the  product  of  the 
labor  for  which  they  are  paid."  By  wages  he 
means  the  reward  earned  by  labor,  whether  that 
labor  was  hired  by  another  or  not.  Let  us  first 
weigh  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  this  proposi- 
tion, and  afterwards,  in  the  light  of  discovery, 
apply  it  to  his  philosophy.  What  is  the  meaning 
of  the  product  of  the  labor  for  which  wages  are 
paid '?  What  is  the  product  of  labor  ?  Mr.  George 
has  already  defined  it  to  be  wealth.  Using  the 
word  wealth,  then,  instead  of  the  phrase  "  the  pro- 
duct of  labor,"  his  proposition  may  be  more  con- 
cisely stated  thus:  "Wages,  instead  of  being 
drawn  from  capital,  are  in  reality  drawn  from 
wealth-."  His  fervid  philosophy  abhors  the  idea  that 
the  reward  of  labor  should'  depend  in  any  way  on 
the  amount  of  capital  employed,  but  is  perfectly 
willing  that  it  should  be  drawn  from  Avealth. 
Wealth  may  pay  labor  its  earnings,  but  capital 
must  not.  Even  now,  by  his  own  confession,  is  he 
again  convicted,  for  as  soon  as  wealth  pays  it  is 
active,  and  he  himself  defines  active  wealth  to  be 
capital.  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  labor  preceded 
this  product  in  time,  and  that,  therefore,  labor  pro- 
duced it  logically.  The  element  of  time  is  not  al- 
ways necessary  to  the  idea  of  cause  and  effect. 
Frequently  a  logical  effect  precedes  its  cause  in 
time.  The  possibility  of  the  product  was  essential 
to  the  employment  of  the  labor,  and  to  that  ex- 
tent the  product  was  an  active  agent  in  causing  the 
labor,  and  was  therefore  capital.  Nor  is  it  enough 
to  say  that,  because  the  wages  are  not  paid  to  labor 
from  an  employer's  hand,  that  they  are  any  the 


17 

less  drawn  from  capital.  One  man  "acts  many 
parts,"  even  in  political  economy,  and  the  laborer 
may  supply  his  own  capital,  as  well  as  the  capital- 
ist may  supply  his  own  labor.  And  as  far  as  labor 
is  concerned,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  the 
capital  that  employs  it  has  already  been  produced 
or  is  yet  to  be  created. 

Let  me  then  restate  once  more  his  proposition, 
using  his  own  ideas,  with  better  words,  and  it  will 
have  been  reduced  to  the  following  absurdity : 
"Wages,  instead  of  being  drawn  from  capital,  are 
in  reality  drawn  from  capital."  Most  lame  and  im- 
potent conclusion  ! 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  first  of  his  fundamental 
propositions  that  I  have  promised  to  refute,  in  the 
sense  in  which  he  means  it — viz.,  that  labor  produces 
wealth.  This  is  the  sentence  that  will  open  wide 
the  rusty  doors  of  past  injustice  and  expose  to  the 
hungry  gaze  of  poor  humanity  the  exhaustless 
gardens  of  plenty,  whose  trees  bear  jewels,  and 
whose  walks  are  bordered  with  precious  stones. 
"  Labor  produces  wealth."  So  it  does,  but  to  pro- 
duce as  an  agent  or  to  create  as  a  cause  are  two  dis- 
tinct ideas,  and  no  reason  can  be  a  sufficient  reason 
to  Mr.  George's  logical  mind  that  is  riot  a  complete 
one.  Unless  he  leaves  his  vicious  circle  and  goes 
with  me  to  discover  what  produces  labor,  I  care 
not  how  often  he  proclaims  that  labor  produces 
wealth.  Labor  itself  is  not  the  primal  producer- 
it  is  the  instrument — it  is  not  the  employer,  it  is  the 
agent.  The  original  wealth  of  power,  which,  when 
actively  engaged  becomes  the  original  capital  power, 
whether  represented  in  the  person  of  one  man  or  a 
million,  whether  exemplified  by  Robinson  Crusoe 


18 

on  his  solitary  island  or  by  society  at  large,  calls 
on  labor  to  execute  its  work,  and  from  that  moment, 
labor  is  its  agent ;  but,  though  an  agent,  it  should 
not  be  a  slave.  In  the  history  of  the  world,  it  has 
often  been  taken  captive  and  enslaved,  and  even  to- 
day, there  are  iniquitous  powers  at  work  endeavor- 
ing to  debase  it ;  but  the  shackles  are  not  to  be 
broken  by  a  sophism,  and  the  sufferer  is  not  to  be 
lifted  to  his  feet  by  a  period.  The  dignity  of  labor 
is  not  lessened  a  jot  by  the  assertion  of  a  truth,  nor 
is  it  increased  an  inch  by  the  blare  of  sophistry. 
The  doctrine  after  all  that  labor  depends  on  capital, 
should  rob  labor  of  nothing  of  its  due  reward,  for 
Mr.  George  himself  asserts  that  land  (meaning  by 
land,  Nature  and  her  forces)  and  labor  and  capital 
are  all  necessary  to  production.  Without  the  gifts 
of  Nature,  labor  would  be  impossible — without  the 
power  and  impulse  to  labor,  labor  would  be  impos- 
sible— without  labor,  production  would  be  impos- 
sible— without  production,  reward  would  be  impos- 
sible. Everything,  therefore,  that  makes  a  reward 
possible  should  own  so  much  of  the  reward  as  de- 
pended on  its  instrumentality.  But  given  the  capi- 
tal, given  the  labor,  given  the  land,  given  the  re- 
ward, who  is  to  distribute  the  reward,  for  it  has 
become  between  him  and  me  not  only  a  question  of 
reward,  but  a  question  of  the  distribution  of  the  re- 
ward. Now,  if  we  had  a  representative  of  the  orig- 
inal giver  of  wealth  always  with  us,  parcelling  out 
justice  and  restricting  the  encroachments  of  one 
producer  on  the  other,  keeping  as  it  were  a  vice- 
deal  counting-house  on  earth,  there  would  be  no 
necessity  for  a  George,  and  no  reason  for  his  elo- 
quence, but  we  have  not  such,  and  we  must  perforce 


19 

do  the  best  we  can  with  the  means  we  have  at  our 
command.  That  capital  should  appropriate  the  due 
reward  of  labor  or  that  labor  should  claim  the 
just  return  to  capital,  is  of  course  no  more  unjust 
than  that  the  land  should  swallow  the  product  of 
both  It  would  be  manifestly  unjust  that  the  feast 
should  be  spread  and  never  tasted,  and  it  would  be 
equally  unfair  that  a  few  should  claim  all  the  seats 
at  the  banquet,  refusing  admission  to  the  many  who 
are  starving  outside.  And  yet,  there  must  be  early 
comers  and  late  comers.  One  must  sit  at  the  head 
and  the  many  must  be  ranged  at  the  side, 
while  perhaps  there  is  small  space  for  a  multitude 
who  clamor  for  admission.  Still,  there  is  meat  for 
all,  and  drink  for  all,  and  place  for  all  if  Decency 
and  not  Gluttony  presides.  But  the  tiger  has  eaten 
his  fill,  and  woe  to  the  prowling  wolf  that  dares  to 
lap  the  mangled  carcass.  Power  breeds  lust  of 
power.  "Homo  homini  lupus"  is  still  a  truism. 
Man  stands  erect  and  reads  the  stars,  but  his  feet  are 
glued  to  earth.  He  is  half  goat,  and  no  picture  is 
complete  that  does  not  paint  the  hairy  leg  and  cloven 
foot.  But  the  question  reverts:— Who  is  to  distri- 
bute justice,  who  is  to  order  the  feast? 

Let  me  answer  this  as  best  I  may  after  I 
have  considered  Mr.  George's  second  doctrine 
of  the  common  ownership  of  land.  But  first, 
as  I  often  will  have  occasion  to  use  the  word 
progress  in  the  course  of  my  remarks,  let  me 
devote  a  moment  to  its  proper  definition.  Pro- 
gress, as  it  may  be  properly  denned,  means  an 
advance  toward  something  better,  but  considered 
with  regard  to  man  in  his  social  relations,  the  term 
must  be  more  fully  explained.  Man  as  I  have  said 


20 

before,  is  a  threefold  being,  exhibiting  an  intellec- 
tual, a  moral  and  a  physical  aspect,  and  when  de- 
veloped and  improved  to  the  fullest  possible  extent, 
must  be  equally  developed  and  improved  in  all  and 
not  one  or  two  of  these  capacities.  Now,  society 
being  merely  an  aggregation  of  individuals,  can  be 
subject  to  no  laws  that  do  not  find  their  origin  in 
the  person  of  its  members.  Social  progress  there- 
fore, must  deal  not  only  with  material  inventions, 
and  the  added  tangible  wealth  of  a  people,  but  must 
refer  with  equal  meaning  to  a  proper  development 
of  the  common  intellect,  and  a  proper  training  of  the 
common  conscience.  The  original  wealth  of  power 
that  I  have  already  alluded  to  is  a  possession  of 
society,  as  well  as  of  individuals,  and  it  will  be 
strengthened  or  lessened  in  its  capacity  of  creating 
new  wealth  in  proportion  to  the  amount  or  lack  of 
mental  and  moral  development  in  the  people  at  large. 
But  progress  is  possible  only  to  those  who  are 
susceptible  of  improvement.  It  cannot  deal  with  per- 
fection. Man' s  very  needs  and  infirmities  are  neces- 
sary to  its  existence.  To  those  then  who  wish  to 
point  out  the  path  to  progress,  the  study  and  know- 
ledge of  man's  weaknesses  as  well  as  the  declara- 
tion of  his  rights,  will  be  necessary.  The  student  of 
political  economy  must  study  the  patient  as  well  as 
the  cure.  To  him,  the  knowledge  of  "the  science  of 
human  character,"  to  borrow  a  happy  phrase  of 
Mr.  Mallock's,  will  be  essential  to  a  proper  under- 
standing of  the  science  of  social  economy.  With 
this  knowledge,  he  will  discover  that  the  principles 
that  underlie  human  character  and  govern  human 
conduct  are  themselves  the  cause  of  human  misery; 
that  men  will  not  all  be  saints,  and  that  mankind 


21 

therefore,  will  not  be  sanctified, —that  no  graduated 
stick  can  measure  all  men's  statures  alike,  and  that 
no  patent  theory  of  economics  can  make  all  men 
equally  happy.  He  will  know  that  as  long  as 
men  are  men,  despotism  will  be  possible,  and 
power  will  be  unjust.  He  will  know  that  all  the 
books  and  essays  and  speeches  of  all  the  reformers 
in  the  world  can  never  make  a  Utopia, — that 
man  himself  is  the  sole  reason  for  man's  inhuman- 
ity to  man.  And  now  I  think  I  hear  the  Georgeites 
exclaim  in  holy  horror  : — "Monstrous  conclusion 
that  makes  poverty  a  necessity.  Could  God,  the 
God  of  Mercy  and  Justice,  allow  such  a  fate  to 
overtake  his  helpless  creatures?  No,"  they  say, 
"poverty  is  rather  the  result  of  rich  men's  crimes- 
it  is  the  effect  of  long  ages  of  selfish  laws  instituted 
by  a  greedy  and  powerful  few,  and  when  we  have 
destroyed  these  laws  and  taken  back  by  force  what 
has  always  of  right  belonged  to  us,  we  will  have 
attained  our  millenium,  and  will  have  justified  the 
eternal  will  of  the  great  Author  of  Good."  If 
these  enthusiasts  were  as  honest  with  us  as  we  are 
with  them  in  the  use  of  phrases,  it  would  not  be 
long  before  they  discovered  that  we  are  both  tread- 
ing the  same  path  but  that  what  is  an  impassable 
barrier  to  us  in  our  journey  towards  reform,  seems 
to  their  nervous  and  emotional  souls  nothing  more 
substantial  than  a  denser  atmosphere  through  which 
they  may  push  on  to  Utopia  without  let  or  hin- 
drance. It  is  true  that  much  of  poverty  is  due  to 
the  wickedness  of  the  rich,  and  is  the  result  of  un- 
just laws  of  long  standing — true  that  these  laws 
should  be  abrogated  or  modified— but  it  is  not 
therefore  true  that  such  a  consummation  would 


22 

change  the  laws  of  human  character  or  that  there- 
after, poverty  would  be  a  thing  unknown.  Nor  is 
it  true  that  we  blaspheme  when  we  attribute  to  the 
agency  of  the  principles  that  govern  human  con- 
duct, the  countless  ills  of  suffering  humanity. 
When  God  breathed  his  breath  into  chaos,  all 
nature  obeyed  except  the  pigmy,  man.  To  him 
was  given  the  glorious  right  of  disobedience.  The 
Godlike  gift  of  free  will  that  makes  us  little  less 
than  the  angels,  plunges  us  at  the  same  time  into 
the  necessary  strifes  of  human  nature.  Rob  us  of 
the  power  to  be  unjust  and  selfish,  and  we  will 
crawl  on  the  belly  of  instinct,  instead  of  walking 
erect  with  the  defiance  of  intelligence. 

And  now  let  me  turn  to  the  consideration  of  Mr. 
George's  other  proposition,  his  proposed  remedy 
for  the  poverty  of  the  world,  his  social  panacea, 
the  nationalization  of  the  land.  "  This,"  he  says, 
"is  the  remedy  for  the  unjust  and  unequal  distri- 
bution of  wealth  apparent  in  modern  civilization, 
and  for  all  the  evils  which  flow  from  it.  We  must 
make  land  '  common  property.' '  He  justifies  this 
proposition  by  the  theory  that  God  gave  the  land 
to  all  men  in  common.  Let  us  examine  this  theory. 
If  God  gave  the  land  to  all  men  in  common,  he  did 
so  literally  and  not  partially.  Caucasians,  Afri- 
cans, Indians,  Chinamen— all  alike  without  regard 
to  geographical  limits  should  have  an  equal  right 
under  this  theory,  to  all  the  land  of  earth.  A  par- 
ticular number  of  people  calling  themselves  a 
nation  would  have  no  more  right  under  this  theory 
as  against  the  rest  of  the  world,  to  a  particular 
portion  of  the  land  in  common,  than  any  one  indi- 
vidual of  such  a  people  would  have  to  any  sub- 


23 

division  of  such  a  particular  portion.  I  imagine, 
however,  it  would  startle  the  wildest  communist 
into  a  smile  of  derision  to  be  told  that  the  wooly 
inhabitant  of  Central  Africa  had  a  natual  right  to  a 
numerical  proportion  of  our  own  fair  land.  And 
still,  unless  the  doctrine  means  this,  it  means  noth- 
ing for  purposes  of  argument.  If  it  means  less — 
if  it  means  that  God  gave  certain  countries  to 
certain  peoples,  guaranteeing  to  each  the  common 
property  of  each,  it  immediately  recognizes  the 
principle  of  the  right  of  adverse  possession  and  the 
other  principle  of  the  right  of  property  by  prior 
occupation.  These  principles,  once  acknowledged 
and  accepted,  as  a  foundation  for  any  system  of 
political  economy,  must  be  universal  in  their  appli- 
cability, or  they  are  essentially  useless  for  the  pur- 
pose of  any  application  whatever.  If,  by  them. 
Mr.  George  justifies  a  nation  in  the  possession  of  its 
national  lands,  as  against  all  comers,  by  them  also 
may  I  justify  an  individual  in  the  possession  of  his 
property  in  land  as  against  all  other  claimants. 
But  Mr.  George  replies,  perhaps,  that  he  needs  the 
assistance  of  no  principle  for  the  justification  of 
his  plan.  He  claims  that  he  has  proven  that 
private  property  in  land  is  the  sole  cause  of  poverty, 
and  that,  therefore,  private  property  in  land  should 
be  abolished.  He  has  "examined  all  other  reme- 
dies," he  says,  "which  are  current^  relied  on,  or 
proposed  for  the  relief  of  poverty  and  the  better 
distribution  of  wealth,  and  has  found  them  all 
inefficacious  or  impracticable."  How  inefficacious 
and  impracticable  his  own  remedy  is,  the  civilized 
world  has  not  yet  seen  fit  to  demonstrate,  but  how 
destructive  its  adoption  would  be  to  all  progress, 


24 

and  to  all  civilization  I  think  can  be  easily  shown. 
He  says : 

"Let  us  abandon  all  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the 
evils  of  land  monopoly  by  restricting  land  owner- 
ship. An  equal  distribution  of  land  is  impossible, 
and  anything  short  of  that  would  only  be  a  mitiga- 
tion, not  a  cure.  Nor  is  any  remedy  worth  consid- 
ering that  does  not  fall  in  with  the  natural  direction 
of  social  development,  and  swim,  so  to  speak,  with 
the  current  of  the  times." 

Mark  his  enthusiasm.  No  remedy  to  him  is 
worthy  of  consideration  that  is  not  a  complete  and 
perfect  one.  A  mitigation  of  the  evil  to  him  is 
worse  than  nothing.  Poverty  is  not  only  to  be  miti- 
gated, but  it  is  to  be  abolished.  Considering  the 
stubborn  knack  that  mankind  has  of  squandering 
in  riotous  dissipation  the  substance  that  should  buy 
the  necessary  bread  and  meat  of  life;  considering 
that  ignorance  and  crime  have  always  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  causing  of  poverty  until  Mr. 
George  evolved  his  book,  his  remedy  is  truly  a 
royal  one.  It  accomplishes  more  in  one  day  than 
Christianity  has  been  able  to  accomplish  in  eigh- 
teen hundred  years.  Verily,  he  is  a  "  Daniel  come 
to  judgment ; "  and  mark  how  he  calls  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  progress  and  social  development  to  sustain 
his  remedy.  "  That  concentration,"  he  says,  "is 
the  order  of  development  there  can  be  no  mistaking 
— the  concentration  of  people  in  large  cities,  the 
concentration  of  handicrafts  in  large  factories,  the 
concentration  of  transportation  by  railroad  and 
steamship  lines,  and  of  agricultural  operations  in 
large  fields.  The  most  trivial  businesses  are  being 
concentrated  in  the  same  way—  errands  are  run  and 


25 

carpet  sacks  are  carried  by  corporations.  All  the 
currents  of  the  time  run  to  concentration.  To  suc- 
cessfully resist  it  we  must  throttle  steam  and  dis- 
charge electricity  from  human  service."  Now  what 
does  the  sentence  that  "concentration  is  the  order 
of  development "  mean  1  It  means  that  develop- 
ment or  progress  uses  methods  of  concentration  as 
its  most  important  factor.  It  means  that  the  prac- 
tice of  concentration  is  necessary  to  the  greatest 
possible  development.  But  what  is  the  nature  of 
the  development  he  refers  to,  and  what  is  the  imme- 
diate purpose  of  the  concentration  ?  Progress,  as  I 
have  already  intimated,  presupposes  weaknesses 
and  inequalities  in  men,  and  the  development, 
therefore,  of  men,  must  necessarily  be  an  unequal 
one  Where  some  have  achieved  success,  others 
will  have  failed.  But  the  goal  is  the  same  to  all. 
Many  seek  the  same  reward,  when  one  alone  can 
win  it.  Strife  and  struggle,  therefore,  are  neces- 
sary elements  of  the  idea  of  progress.  But  the  sum 
of  progress,  the  aggregation  of  individual  develop- 
ments, these  form  the  progress  of  the  State.  So, 
also,  the  sum  of  individual  wealth  forms  the  com- 
mon wealth  of  the  State.  Now  the  custom  of  con- 
centration has  been  found  to  be  a  most  successful 
method  of  achieving  wealth  on  the  part  of  individ- 
uals and  corporations.  It  has  been  discovered  to  be 
a  most  effectual  weapon  in  the  struggle  of  develop- 
m^nt.  Cease  to  struggle,  and  development  will  be 
impossible — cease  to  develop,  and  the  weapon  will 
be  useless.  The  usefulness  of  this  weapon — concen- 
tration— has  appeared  to  Mr.  George — he  has 
marked  with  jealous  eye  the  success  of  individuals 
who  have  employed  it,  and  he  proposes  to  prevent 


26 

their  success  in  the  future  by  permitting  its  use  to 
the  State  alone.  He  talks  thus  in  effect  to  the  mem- 
bers of  Society — "You  have  been  struggling  for 
ages  amongst  yourselves  for  a  prize,  and  it  has  been 
achieved  by  those  few  of  you  who  have  used  the 
weapon  concentration.  Now  I  will  take  this  wea- 
pon from  you  and  give  it  to  the  State.  The  State 
will  fight  with  it  and  will  win  with  it,  and  you  few 
rich  men  can  amass  no  more."  It  is  strange  that 
so  clear  a  brain  can  sometimes  think  so  grossly  ! 
Who  and  what  is  the  State  in  this  struggle  towards 
development,  and  with  whom  is  it  to  struggle  ?  Is 
it  an  entity  distinct  entirely  from  its  component 
parts  \  Does  it  itself  propose  to  take  a  hand  in  the 
strife  of  its  members  ?  Does  self-inflicted  discipline 
mean  battle,  and  does  suicide  mean  victory  ?  To 
think  of  a  State  existing  regardless  of  the  struggling 
members  that  compose  it  would  be  just  as  reason- 
able as  to  think  of  a  bar  of  iron  existing  without 
the  moving  atoms  that  go  to  make  it  up. 

Again,  a  casual  study  of  the  science  of  human 
character  will  prove  that  man  does  nothing  without 
a  prospect  of  reward.  Genius  and  intellectual 
power  demand  a  reward  as  well  as  labor,  and  are 
paralyzed  without  the  hope  of  it.  Without  an  in- 
centive to  work,  stagnation  comes.  These  are  un- 
deniable truths.  When,  therefore,  there  is  the 
promise  of  the  greatest  number  and  the  greatest 
variety  of  the  best  kind  of  rewards,  there  will  also 
be  the  greatest  activity,  the  most  effective  employ- 
ment of  all  of  man's  functions,  and  par i  pas su,  the 
greatest  progress.  Now,  as  land  is  the  greatest 
tangible  gift  of  nature  obtainable  by  man,  man  will 
always  seek  its  possession  as  his  best  material  re- 


27 

ward,  and  will  be  satisfied  witli  nothing  less  than 
absolute  ownership.  Deny  him  this,  and  he  will 
not  work  ;  deny  him  this,  and  progress  will  stand 
still,  to  move  no  more.  Deny  him  this,  and  it 
would  not  be  necessary  for  Mr.  George  to  "throttle 
steam  and  discharge  electricity  from  human  ser- 
vice." The  fires  would  have  gone  out  in  the  fur- 
nace, and  the  rusted  wires  would  throb  no  more 
with  messages  of  prosperity. 

I  have  dwelt  on  these  ideas  at  this  point  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  what  fallacies  and  absurd  con- 
clusions a  careless  use  of  terms  may  lead  us  into. 

But,  after  all,  Mr.  George  sees  fit  to  modify  the 
statement  of  his  doctrine.  u  It  is  not  necessary," 
he  says,  "to  confiscate  land;  it  is  only  necessary 
to  confiscate  rent."  And,  to  do  this,  he  proposes  to 
abolish  all  taxation,  save  that  upon  land  values. 
"  Let  the  individuals  who  now  hold  it,"  he  says, 
4 'still  retain,  if  they  want  to,  possession  of  what 
they  are  pleased  to  call  their  land.  Let  them  buy 
and  sell  and  bequeath  and  devise  it.  We  may 
safely  leave  them  the  shell,  if  we  take  the  kernel." 
This  confession  is  enough.  No  man  could  afford 
to  hold  it,  and  therefore  no  man  would.  The  State 
at  large  would  have  become  the  sole  and  universal 
landlord  ;  and,  without  entering  into  the  discussion 
of  whether  the  State,  in  the  person  of  its  agents 
and  commissioners,  would  deal  any  more  leniently 
with  its  tenants  than  the  present  owners  of 
land,  I  will  be  content  to  ask  one  or  two 
questions.  Are  these  nationalized  lands  to  be  thrown 
open  to  the  people  to  be  roamed  over  and  occupied 
at  will  without  rent  ?  If  so,  then  is  the  red  Indian 
abreast  of  us  in  civilization.  Or  is  a  rent  to  be  fixed 


28 

and  charged  \  The  State  could  fix  no  appropriate 
rent  for  any  parcel  of  land  without  first  ascertain- 
ing the  value  and  productiveness  of  such  parcel. 
Rich  and  productive  parcels  therefore,  could  be 
held  in  tenancy  only  by  rich  tenants,  while  the 
poor  and  unproductive  lands  would  fall  to  the  share 
of  the  poor  already.  Poverty  could  not  thus  put 
on  the  robes  of  riches.  Further,  if  the  tenancy  of 
rich  lands  were  still  desirable,  capital  would  vie 
with  capital  for  its  possession.  The  use  of  lands 
then,  instead  of  the  lands  themselves,  would  be 
bought  and  sold  in  the  market  to  the  highest  bid- 
der, and  the  reform  would  be  a  reform  only  in  name. 
And  yet,  after  all  is  said,  why  is  the  world  studying 
this  problem  with  so  much  sincerity?  Why  has 
the  book  on  Progress  and  Poverty  been  read  with 
so  much  avidity  and  in  so  many  tongues  ?  Why  is 
it  becoming  a  more  settled  belief  every  day  that 
there  is  something  radically  wrong  in  the  present 
method  of  the  tenure  of  land  ?  Why,  in  a  word,  is 
George' s  doctrine  strong  ?  To  be  honest,  because, 
after  all,  there  is  a  grain  of  truth  in  it.  He  has  led 
us  up  to  the  Sesame  of  his  philosophy  by  an  elo- 
quent and  truthful  portrayal  of  the  ills  that  follow 
from  land  monopoly.  He  has  asked  us  to  consider 
what  would  be  the  consequences  if  one  man  or  one 
corporation  should  hold  and  own  all  the  lands  of  a 
State.  He  has  proved  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  ac- 
cumulation of  immense  tracts  of  land  in  the  hands 
of  a  few,  means  poverty  and  misery  and  de- 
spair on  the  part  of  the  many.  But  he  has  not 
proved  that  because  much  land  should  not  be  held, 
therefore  no  land  should  be  held.  He  has  not  proved 
that  because  a  man  should  not  own  a  principality 


29 

that  therefore  he  should  not  own  an  acre.  He  has 
not  proved  that  because  there  should  be  no  waste 
in  the  offering  of  rewards  to  progress  that  therefore 
there  should  be  no  reward  at  all  to  progress.  He 
has  found  a  key  to  the  garden  gate,  and  with  ib  he 
presumes  to  open  the  massive  frontdoor.  "  Qui 
trop  embrasse  mal  etreint "  But,  though  we  can- 
not see  the  logic  of  his  conclusion,  though  his 
remedy  is  impracticable  and  self-destructive,  we  can 
nevertheless  thoroughly  sympathize  with  him  in  his 
description  of  the  ills  that  need  the  remedy.  The 
King  or  Kaiser  who  under  the  guise  of  divine  right, 
claims  as  his  own  the  land  over  which  he  rules, 
who  rewards  his  favorites  with  the  lands  he  has 
confiscated  from  his  less  fortunate  subjects,  whose 
hunters  trample  the  corn  of  the  helpless  farmer  to 
make  a  royal  holiday,  commits  a  sin  whose  hein- 
ousness  is  only  equalled  by  its  audacity — and  the 
wonder  grows  that  mankind  should  have  suffered 
the  persecution  so  long.  The  monopolist  who  by 
virtue  of  his  power  accumulates  without  limit  the 
best  and  fairest  lands  of  the  country  that  has  en- 
riched him,  holding  them  by  caprice,  and  using 
them  or  not  as  his  own  sweet  will  may  dictate,  is 
guilty  of  an  injustice  equal  in  nature,  though  less  in 
extent,  to  that  of  his  prototype,  the  despot.  And 
still,  men  have  always  known  the  injustice. 
But  man  does  not  suffer  without  remonstrance.  For 
every  cruel  blow,  there  is  a  cry  of  pain  :  for  every 
wanton  insult,  there  must  be  a  flush  of  indignation. 
It  does  not  require  the  promulgation  of  a  theory  to 
teach  the  squalid  slave  the  manifest  injustice  of  bis 
condition :  he  knew  it  by  instinct.  The  same  hu- 
manity that  made  one  man  his  master  made  the 


30 

slave  aware  in  his  heart  of  the  awful  crime  that 
made  that  master  possible  ;  and  the  people  to-day, 
knowing  the  sins  that  have  helped  to  cause  their 
misery  demand  and  expect  a  competent  remedy. 
But,  before  proposing  any  particular  cure  for  the 
injustices  of  land  holdings,  let  me  here  return,  as  I 
have  promised,  to  the  consideration  of  the  remedy 
to  be  applied  to  the  differences  existing  between 
labor  and  capital  in  general.  And  here,  I  use  these 
terms  labor  and  capital  as  they  are  generally  and 
popularly  used.  In  reality,  there  is  no  conflict  be- 
tween labor  and  capital.  Many  laborers  who  re- 
ceive the  earnings  of  their  toil  are  to  some  extent 
capitalists,  and  every  capitalist  when  actively  en- 
gaged in  production  or  exchange  is  to  some  extent 
a  laborer.  Mr.  George  himself  does  not  deny  this 
evident  proposition.  Capital  and  labor  being  both 
necessary  to  production,  can  have  no  conflict  in  the 
.production.  The  issue  then  is  not  to  find  a  remedy 
for  any  struggle  going  on  between  labor  and  capi- 
tal— none  such  exists — but  to  find  a  remedy  for  the 
struggle  going  on  between  some  laborers  and  some 
capitalists.  This,  instead  of  being  a  question  of  phan- 
tom philosophy,  is  a  practical  proposition  of  how  to 
limit  the  encroachments  of  certain  capitalists,  and 
how  correspondingly  to  better  the  condition  of  cer- 
tain laborers.  It  is  a  question  of  how  most  practi- 
cally to  distribute  justice  to  the  various  producers 
of  wealth.  It  is  a  live  question,  capable  of  being 
handled  in  a  practical  way  by  practical  men  whether 
or  not  they  have  had  the  good  fortune  to  read  Smith, 
Mill,  Spencer  or  George.  It  is  not  a  conflict  of  ideas, 
it  is  a  conflict  of  men.  False  systems  of  philosophy 
in  the  past  could  not  have  created  it  and  true  or 


31 

false  systems  of  philosophy  in  the  present  can  not 
cure  it.  And,  if  this  is  a  conflict  of  men,  the  cause 
of  the  injustices  that  grow  out  of  the  conflict  must 
be  in  men  themselves.  Man  must  be  unjust  before 
he  commits  injustice.  Make  him  perfect  and  injus- 
tice will  be  impossible.  Make  him  better  only  and 
injustice  will  be  lessened.  But  man  cannot  be  made 
perfect.  "The  just  man  falls  seven  times  a  day" 
means  that  no  man  is  absolutely  just.  And  this  is 
the  inherent  fallacy  of  Mr.  George's  doctrine  that  he 
proposes  to  abolish  when  he  can  only  mitigate  the 
evil.  He  talks  of  progress,  which  means  a  bettering 
of  condition,  and  in  the  same  breath,  he  talks  of  a 
mere  phase  of  progress  which  to  him  means  a  per- 
fecting of  condition,  and  the  inconsistency  is  not 
apparent  to  his  prophetic  soul. 

If  we  are  seeking  for  a  remedy  that  will  completely 
abolish  inj  ustice,  our  first  success  is  failure.  We  have 
lived  and  will  live  forever  on  the  borders  of  a  dead 
sea  and  the  fair  fruits  that  tempt  us  will  turn  to 
ashes  if  we  taste  them.  But  if  a  wrong  exists, 
can  it  not  be  righted  ?  You  might  as  well  ask,  if  a 
soul  exists,  must  it  not  be  saved  ?  The  same  in- 
scrutable fate  that  makes  man  the  arbiter  of  his 
own  eternal  destiny,  makes  him  also,  within  the 
social  limit,  the  victim  of  his  own  mistakes  and 
weaknesses.  The  universal  law  of  compensation 
applies  to  society  as  well  as  to  physics.  A  jet  of 
water  forced  into  the  air  again  of  necessity  seeks 
the  earth  ;  a  band  of  rubber  pulled  beyond  its 
power  of  tension  will  break,  perforce.  Sysiphus 
sweated  an  eternal  life  pushing  a  stone  towards  the 
summit  of  a  mountain,  and  his  punishment  was  as 
endless  as  the  law  of  gravitation.  What,  then,  it 


32 

will  be  asked,  is  the  use  of  discussion  ?  If  a  re- 
morseless fate  dooms  mankind  to  incurable  misfor- 
tunes—if  riots,  revolutions  and  wars  are  as  natural 
as  thunderstorms  and  earthquakes— why  try  to 
accomplish  impossibilities  ?  Shall  we,  like  the  Ma- 
hometan, stolidly  accept  our  destiny,  or  shall  we 
wear  out  our  ineffectual  lives  in  futile  efforts  to  do 
what  cannot  be  done  ?  Let  us  do  neither  ;  for  some- 
thing can  be  done  by  him  who  knows  the  difficulty 
of  the  task.  The  man  who  knows  his  weakness 
is  equally  conscious  of  his  strength,  and  to  the 
people  who  will  not  strive  to  overstep  the  limits  of 
reason  will  be  given  the  knowledge  of  true  reform 
and  the  reward  of  true  progress.  Icarus  fell  to 
an  ignominious  death  for  flying  too  near 
the  sun,  but  less  ambitious  sailors  of  the 
winds  will  some  day  make  the  busy  heav- 
ens populous.  Let  us  first  discover  what 
we  cannot  do,  and  it  will  be  made  clear  to  us  what 
we  can.  We  cannot  change  the  laws  that  govern 
human  nature.  We  cannot  make  men  angels.  We 
cannot  expect  progress  when  we  destroy  the  very 
rules  of  progress;  but,  knowing  that  man  is  capable 
of  improvement,  knowing  that  there  are  such  things 
as  good  and  evil,  we  can  improve  as  far  as  possible  ; 
we  can  punish  for  misdeeds  and  reward  for  good. 
That  it  is  possible  for  communities  to  live  together 
in  a  spirit  of  charity  and  self-denial  is  proven  by 
numberless  instances  ;  so  it  is  at  least  possible  that 
the  great  community,  the  people,  may  in  a  degree 
be  educated  to  a  higher  idea  of  what  is  right  and  a 
deeper  abhorrence  of  what  is  wrong. 

I  believe  it  has  been  demonstrated  by  actual  experi- 
ment that  an  infant  abandoned  to  solitude  without 


33 

guidance  and  companionship  will  grow  up  an  un- 
tamed beast.  Strength  to  battle  with  his  new-found 
kindred  will  be  given  him, — talons  will  lengthen  on 
his  finger  tips  to  tear  his  uncooked  meat,  and  hair  will 
protect  his  unconventional  form  from  heat  and  cold, 
but  the  gentle  reason  of  his  sire  will  have  no  reflex 
in  the  savage  eye,  and  the  sweet  morality  of  his  un- 
known mother  will  be  powerless  to  stay  the  mur- 
derous arm.  In  one  short  life  the  teachings  of  un- 
told generations  would  have  vanished  as  the  breath 
from  a  looking  glass ;  and  if  it  w^ere  ordained  that 
this  new-made  savage  should  rear  anew  a  race  of 
men,  time  would  have  to  be  retold  and  progress 
would  have  to  reconstruct  her  weary  masonry. 
Poor  human  nature,  lifted  through  -eternal 
darkness,  to  a  glimpse  of  right,  is  again 
hurled  in  one  short  moment  to  a  fathomless 
abyss  of  savagery.  Constant  care,  then,  constant 
teaching,  constant  training,  these  are  the  price  of 
progress.  Develop  the  common  mind,  train  the 
common  conscience  and  the  struggle  for  bread  will 
mean  something  more  than  dissension.  The  old  and 
fretful  Lear,  cursing  poor  Cordelia,  gave  Goneril 
and  Regan,  not  only  his  kingdom  but  his  happi- 
ness, and  perhaps,  unless  we  teach  our  people 
morals  as  well  as  manners,  we  may  find  ourselves 
blindly  masquerading  as  impotent  reformers  and 
bellowing  useless  curses  against  the  roar  of  the 
resistless  storm  of  anarchy.  Without  religion,  the 
daughter  of  the  heart,  ruin  comes  again.  The  vines 
of  morality  must  be  planted  if  we  hope  to  gather 
grapes,  not  thistles.  But  here  the  social  reformer 
and  political  economist  have  no  place.  The  teachers 
of  a  higher  philosophy  have  planted  this  vineyard 


34 v 

and  will  claim  the  right  to  work  it  through  all 
time.  But  when  the  grapes  of  the  heart  are 
garnered  and  the  wine  of  justice  has  been 
drunk,  we  will  be  strong  to  make  smooth 
the  rough  places  and  to  build  our  roads  eternal. 
Morality  will  have  taken  Freedom's  hand  and  these 
two  white- winged  angels  will  have  guided  ns  to 
higher  plains  and  nobler  walks  where  dissension 
finds  no  place.  Then  to  the  people  who  by  expe- 
rience have  learned  the  difference  between  wheat 
and  chaff  will  be  given  the  true  talisman.  Such  a 
people,  knowing  justice,  will  be  competent  them 
selves  to  administer  it.  Democracy  will  have  struck 
the  rock  with  the  wand  of  political  liberty,  and  the 
waters  of  reform  will  flow  to  slake  the  thirst  of  suf- 
fering humanity.  Such  a  people  may  agree  with 
Mr.  George  that  labor  owns  its  own  reward  ;  that 
most  wealth  is  robbery,  and  most  poverty  unde- 
served ;  that  there  is  something  radically  wrong  in 
the  social  structure  and  that  a  remedy  is  necessary; 
but  such  a  people,  undisturbed  by  the  ineffectual 
bark  of  alien  malcontents,  and  calm  in  the  knowl- 
edge that  only  the  just  deserve  justice,  knowing  no 
master  but  themselves,  obeying  no  political  law  they 
do  not  make  themselves,  will  guard  in  safety  the 
honest  holder  of  a  fruitful  acre,  with  as  jealous  care 
as  it  will  guard  the  common  laborer  who  earns  his 
token  wages.  Such  a  people  will  legislate  and  not 
theorize.  OUT  own  fair  land  made  light  by  the 
torch  of  accomplished  liberty,  needs  no  self-ap- 
pointed teacher — she  may  smile  at  the  unsolicited 
advice  of  envy,  and  her  ruddy  cheek  need  not 
blanch  at  the  lurid  threats  of  imported  socialism. 
She  will  guarantee  to  any  of  her  citizens  the  right  to 


35 

agitate  on  any  question  if  they  do  so  peaceably, 
but  she  will  reserve  to  herself  the  privi- 
lege of  rejecting  the  proffered  remedies. 
And  I  have  the  utmost  confidence  in  the  final  com- 
mon sense  of  the  American  people.  We  give  the 
largest  liberty  of  speech  and  action  to  the  vendors  of 
variegated  vagaries,  but  we  draw  the  line  at  danger. 
We  made  and  are  still  making  our  own  laws,  and 
when  we  are  ready  to  try  old  notions  in  new  dresses, 
we  will  do  so  very  quietly  and  without  the  necessity 
of  the  trial  by  blood . 

I  will  follow  Mr.  George  no  longer.  Whether 
I  have  succeeded  well  or  ill  in  exposing  the 
fallacy  and  danger  of  his  theories,  I  will  rest 
content  with  my  own  conclusion,  that  labor  after 
all  depends  on  capital  for  its  employment ;  that  the 
injustices  apparent  in  society  are  the  result  of  the 
principles  that  govern  human  conduct ;  that  human 
conduct  can  be  improved  only  after  a  study  of  the 
science  of  human  character  ;  that  this  science  will 
teach  us  that  the  heart  as  well  as  the  mind  must  be 
developed  before  a  people  can  be  prepared  for  the 
utmost  remedy  that  is  possible,  and  that  this  re- 
medy, which  is  democracy  purified  by  morality,  is 
powerful  to  give  us  all  the  cure  that  is  practicable. 
For  reform  has  never  and  can  never  come  through 
monarchy.  I  will  be  content  with  the  conclusion, 
that  Salvation  is  possible  only  to  those  people  who 
have  learned  to  work  out  their  own  salvation  j)that 
after  all,  the  remedy  cannot  be  perfect ;  that  it  must 
be  burdened  with  all  the  imperfections  of  human 
nature,  and  is  effective  or  not  according  to  the  de- 
gree of  education  in  the  object  itself. 

And  now,  as  a  young  man,  let  me  address  the 


36 

young  men  who  are  about  to  go  out  from  the 
sacred  halls  of  Alma  Mater  into  the  world  to  attack 
these  living  questions.  To  you  will  be  given  the 
task  of  proposing  a  remedy  for  the  abuses  of  prop- 
erty in  land.  On  you  rests  the  burden  and  on  you 
lies  the  responsibility  of  standing  between  the  op- 
pressed and  the  oppressor.  Especially  if  your  field 
of  labor  shall  be  the  court  or  the  halls  of  legislation, 
or  if,  perchance,  you  shall  chose  the  noble  profes- 
sion of  journalism,  so  powerful  for  good  and  so  in- 
strumental in  moulding  popular  opinion  and  in  di- 
recting popular  conduct,  you  will  see  the  injustice 
of  monopoly  in  land  as  well  as  monopoly  in  other 
things  ;  and  your  attack  will  be  not  against  the  mere 
right  of  property  in  land,  but  against  the  right  of 
unlimited  property  in  land.  You  will  teach  your 
people  that  an  individual  or  corporation  has  no  more 
right  to  accumulate  all  the  land  of  the  State  than 
the  State  has  to  aggrandize  all  the  land  of  the  world 
— that  the  sin  of  wealth  is  non-use  and  that  the  sin 
of  capital  is  misuse,  and  that  they  themselves,  the 
people,  guided  by  reason,  and  uninfluenced  by  pas- 
sion, have  the  right  themselves  to  fix  the  limit — that 
organization  and  co-operation  shall  make  them 
strong  if  justice  and  moderation  shall  guide  their 
plans.  You  will  teach  them  further  that  the  grant- 
ing of  immense  franchises  should  be  accomplished 
by  a  sufficient  return  to  the  State,  either  in  the  way 
of  purchase  money  or  rent — that  the  importation  of 
pauper  labor  is  only  in  a  degree  removed  from  the 
importation  of  slave  labor.  These  things  and  others 
will  you  teach  them,  as  necessity  demands.  Then 
will  you  teach  the  world  that  the  uneasy  thrones 
of  tyranny  must  crumble  before  the  magic  wand 


37 

of  Democracy,  and  when  in  future  ages  the  lesson 
shall  have  been  learnt  by  heart,  strife  will  have 
ceased  and  charity  will  ordain  the  councils  of  the 
nations,  and  the  prophet  will  not  have  sung  in 
vain  : 

"  That  the  war  drum  throbs  no  longer,  and  the  battle  flags  are  furled, 
In  the  Parliament  of  man,  the  Federation  of  the  world." 


IS! 


'.S/7/ 


'28314 


